Jerkface

Perfect example of a blatantly intellectualy dishonest argument right here. Show me how Pokemon cards were designed to burn down a house.

Right? I mean, why would someone who shot their spouse do anything irrational?

Let's take a look at the old ssd...

C:\Program Files (x86)\Epic Games
C:\Program Files (x86)\GOG Galaxy
C:\Program Files (x86)\Hearthstone
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\

etcetera

owns 47 guns, 26,000 rounds -> shoots wife

Never woulda seen that coming! Must be the booze!

In C:\Program Files? Or C:\Program Files (x86)?

you wouldn't call yourself a chef, or serve it to anyone who expected "gourmet shit".

Hell yes I would!

What goes better with crackers?

They got called out on all their bullshit, in front of the staff they were trying to take advantage of.

Snakes with crossbows.

It sounds like you just invented elections.

I think I see your point. I had a professor who was an absolute dick on Zoom. Condescending, intrusive, pushy. When we went back to in-person, I didn't have any of those issues with him.

Just after going through a few examples in my head, the difficulty becomes somewhat more apparent. let's start with 3. This is odd, so 3(3)+1 = 10. 10 is even so we have 10/2=5.

By this point my intuition tells me that we don't have a very obvious pattern that we can use to decide whether the function will output 4, 2, or 1 by recursively applying the function to its own output, other than the fact that every other number that we try appears to result in this pattern. We could possibly reduce the problem to whether we can guess that the function will eventually output a power of 2, but that doesn't sound to me like it makes things much easier.

If I had no idea whether a proof existed, I would guess that it may, but that it is non-trivial. Or at least my college math courses did not prepare me to find one. Since it looks like plenty of professional mathematicians have struggled with it, I have no doubt that if a proof exists it is non-trivial.